DOI article:
J. [John] Nilsen Laurvik, International Photography at the National Arts Club, New York
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31040#0061
A manually made transcription or edition is also available for this page. Please change to the tab "transrciption" or "edition."
of composition than Coburn at his best, and few of those worthy of serious consideration are more
disappointing on the whole. At least such was the case with these prints, heralded from the London
Linked Ring Salon of last year as something far in advance of his previous work. And curiously
enough, this was my first impression of them when I viewed them privately one by one; they
seemed a great step in advance of his past performances. But they did not wear well—when seen
again some months later; in his one-man show at the Photo-Secession they looked so utterly dif-
ferent that I could hardly believe they were the same prints. And they were. The group in the
National Arts Club only confirmed and strengthened this impression. There was nothing here
as fine, even pictorially, as “The Fountain, Trevi,” “The Bridge, Venice,” “Weir’s Close” or
“The Rudder,” all of which prints represent Coburn in a manner unsurpassed by any one. “The
White Bridge, Venice,” luminous and sparkling with light, and “The Tunnel Builders, New
York,” were the only two prints here that in a measure held their own with his former work or
with the best of the same kind in the exhibition.
One of the most delightful notes in the show was the group of seven prints by Mrs. Annie
W. Brigman, whose work is the most personal and highly imaginative contribution to pictorial
photography that has appeared in some time. This group created considerable interest among
artists and public alike and did much to illustrate the wide diversity of subject and treatment
among the workers in this movement. Of like interest and importance were the delicate evocations
of Herbert G. French, whose prints, almost breath-like in their subtlety of tone furnished the
most striking example of artistic reticence in the exhibition. In a measure comparable with these,
not as evasively delicate, though executed much in the same spirit, were the prints of Baron A.
De Meyer, whose work betrayed an almost hypersensitive feeling for light combined with a certain
aristocratic aloofness that gives an air of distinction to everything from his hand. It is therefore
vain to signal out of his seven prints any one in particular—they were all interesting, marked by
an unerring sense of the fitness of things artistically and a fine appreciation of the rich possibilities
of photography.
In strong contrast with De Meyer’s work were the large prints by Kuehn,Watzek,Henneberg,
and the Hofmeisters which dominated the whole show by their size and the vigorous, painter-like
treatment of their subjects which made them carry across the room much in the same manner as
would a boldly painted canvas. This was too obvious at times and a bit disconcerting to the
uninitiated who looked upon them as paintings or reproductions of paintings, especially in the case
of the “Sheep” by the late Hans Watzek, in which the effort seems to have been to obliterate as
thoroughly as possible all evidences of photography. On the other hand, the “Pommeranian
Motif” by Henneberg and the “Moonlight, Villa Frascati” by Kuehn were all and more than one
might ask for. They were not only beautiful pictorially but fine technically, showing a consummate
mastery of photographic craftsmanship. In the “Moonlight, Villa Frascati” Kuehn has suc-
ceeded admirably in retaining a feeling of light throughout, which is particularly notable in the
wide reach of shadow cast by the long lane of trees leading up to the ghostly white spot in the
distance that is the villa. The most unforgetable photograph in the show was perhaps the very
large print by Theodore and Oscar Hofmeister called “Solitary Horseman” which astonished
every one by its size as well as by its sombre, decorative qualities.
In the British section, J. Craig Annan was easily first, and the only one among them whose
work was fit to rank with the best of the other big men. His “Lombardy Plowing Team,” done
back in 1893, and the beautiful, dignified portrait of “Janet Burnet,” done in the same year, were
indicative of the high powers of the man. The architectural studies of Frederick H. Evans were
interesting as showing the work of a man who in his way was one of the pioneers, so to speak,
of pictorial photography in England. Mr. Evans’ prints are absolutely straightforward renderings
of architecture which he is never able to make twice alike, according to his article published in
the last issue of “Camera Work.” That this is a feat of no inconsiderable importance no one will
dispute. It only remains to add in regard to Mr. Evans’ work that his multiple mountings are
the despair of all imitators and one has a good notion of his unique place in the photographic
world.
The French group, composed of Demachy, LeBegue, and Puyo, were chiefly remarkable
for their experiments in gum and oil printing, which they have pushed farther than any others.
Demachy was represented by a series of seven prints,of which the print called “Louise” and the
disappointing on the whole. At least such was the case with these prints, heralded from the London
Linked Ring Salon of last year as something far in advance of his previous work. And curiously
enough, this was my first impression of them when I viewed them privately one by one; they
seemed a great step in advance of his past performances. But they did not wear well—when seen
again some months later; in his one-man show at the Photo-Secession they looked so utterly dif-
ferent that I could hardly believe they were the same prints. And they were. The group in the
National Arts Club only confirmed and strengthened this impression. There was nothing here
as fine, even pictorially, as “The Fountain, Trevi,” “The Bridge, Venice,” “Weir’s Close” or
“The Rudder,” all of which prints represent Coburn in a manner unsurpassed by any one. “The
White Bridge, Venice,” luminous and sparkling with light, and “The Tunnel Builders, New
York,” were the only two prints here that in a measure held their own with his former work or
with the best of the same kind in the exhibition.
One of the most delightful notes in the show was the group of seven prints by Mrs. Annie
W. Brigman, whose work is the most personal and highly imaginative contribution to pictorial
photography that has appeared in some time. This group created considerable interest among
artists and public alike and did much to illustrate the wide diversity of subject and treatment
among the workers in this movement. Of like interest and importance were the delicate evocations
of Herbert G. French, whose prints, almost breath-like in their subtlety of tone furnished the
most striking example of artistic reticence in the exhibition. In a measure comparable with these,
not as evasively delicate, though executed much in the same spirit, were the prints of Baron A.
De Meyer, whose work betrayed an almost hypersensitive feeling for light combined with a certain
aristocratic aloofness that gives an air of distinction to everything from his hand. It is therefore
vain to signal out of his seven prints any one in particular—they were all interesting, marked by
an unerring sense of the fitness of things artistically and a fine appreciation of the rich possibilities
of photography.
In strong contrast with De Meyer’s work were the large prints by Kuehn,Watzek,Henneberg,
and the Hofmeisters which dominated the whole show by their size and the vigorous, painter-like
treatment of their subjects which made them carry across the room much in the same manner as
would a boldly painted canvas. This was too obvious at times and a bit disconcerting to the
uninitiated who looked upon them as paintings or reproductions of paintings, especially in the case
of the “Sheep” by the late Hans Watzek, in which the effort seems to have been to obliterate as
thoroughly as possible all evidences of photography. On the other hand, the “Pommeranian
Motif” by Henneberg and the “Moonlight, Villa Frascati” by Kuehn were all and more than one
might ask for. They were not only beautiful pictorially but fine technically, showing a consummate
mastery of photographic craftsmanship. In the “Moonlight, Villa Frascati” Kuehn has suc-
ceeded admirably in retaining a feeling of light throughout, which is particularly notable in the
wide reach of shadow cast by the long lane of trees leading up to the ghostly white spot in the
distance that is the villa. The most unforgetable photograph in the show was perhaps the very
large print by Theodore and Oscar Hofmeister called “Solitary Horseman” which astonished
every one by its size as well as by its sombre, decorative qualities.
In the British section, J. Craig Annan was easily first, and the only one among them whose
work was fit to rank with the best of the other big men. His “Lombardy Plowing Team,” done
back in 1893, and the beautiful, dignified portrait of “Janet Burnet,” done in the same year, were
indicative of the high powers of the man. The architectural studies of Frederick H. Evans were
interesting as showing the work of a man who in his way was one of the pioneers, so to speak,
of pictorial photography in England. Mr. Evans’ prints are absolutely straightforward renderings
of architecture which he is never able to make twice alike, according to his article published in
the last issue of “Camera Work.” That this is a feat of no inconsiderable importance no one will
dispute. It only remains to add in regard to Mr. Evans’ work that his multiple mountings are
the despair of all imitators and one has a good notion of his unique place in the photographic
world.
The French group, composed of Demachy, LeBegue, and Puyo, were chiefly remarkable
for their experiments in gum and oil printing, which they have pushed farther than any others.
Demachy was represented by a series of seven prints,of which the print called “Louise” and the
